Special notice to ALL
WHO DENY two seedline, #16
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419)435-2836
Once more, I will
reiterate We are at WAR, and I am not referring to the war between the �spirit
and the flesh� as the anti-seedliners do. Yes, there is a war between the
spirit and the flesh, and I wouldn�t discredit it in the least, but the WAR I
am speaking of is an entirely different conflict. The WAR I�m addressing is
the WAR between the �seed of the serpent� and the �seed of the woman.� How can
anyone deny there are two seeds mentioned in Genesis 3:15? But deny it they
do! They use some of the most fantastic arguments in an attempt to disprove
that fact. Most anti-seedliners trace the bad fig �Jews� back to Esau, with
which I do not disagree. But, if one will notice the various wives whom Esau
married, one will discover they were mainly from the ten Canaanite nations of
which the Kenites were a part (Genesis 15:19). If one will check the
Strong�s number for Kenite, one will see that it is #7017 and 7014. Then
checking those numbers, they will be found to mean Cain, the one who murdered
Abel. Now whether you believe that Satan or Adam was Cain�s father, Scripture
definitely proves that Esau�s children had Cain�s blood flowing in their
veins. This fact is confirmed by Messiah Himself, (Matthew 23:35). The very
nature of Cain displayed itself in Doeg the Edomite killing 85 of Yahweh�s
priests of the �linen ephod� at king Saul�s command, 1 Samuel 22:17-18. This
leaves the whole matter dependent on Genesis 4:1 for which both the
Massoretic and Septuagint texts are ambiguously obscure.
Thankfully, we have a witness which is much clearer than the usual, accepted
rendering of that verse, and which is contextually in agreement with the rest
of Scripture. Let�s take a look at it:
Targum of Jonathan
on Genesis 4:1:
�And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she
conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like
earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.�
Whether or not we agree
with this rendering depends on how badly we want to correlate this passage to
correspond with, and measure up to the rest of
The Word. If the anti-seedliners
don�t accept this rendering, one would think they would at least recognize
that the �Jews� are the descendants of Cain! They simply don�t believe their
Bible. They, therefore, demand that the Almighty accept their personally
contrived dogmas and opinions on Scripture. One such passage of Scripture the
anti-seedliners take vehement exception to as proving Two Seedline doctrine is
Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43 about the �wheat and the tares.� While Stephen E.
Jones and Jeffrey A. Weakley avoid comment on this topic, Lt. Col. Jack Mohr
and Ted R. Weiland jump right in where angels fear to tread.
Before examining Matthew
13:24-30, 37-43, it would be advisable to read it:
�24 Another
parable put he forth unto them saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a
man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came
and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was
sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the
servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow
good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them,
An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go
and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye
root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest:
and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first
the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn ... 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is
the Son of Man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of
the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The
enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and
the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned
in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall
send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things
that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace
of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the
righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears
to hear, let him hear.�
It�s simply fantastic the
various interpretations the anti-seedliners put on this passage, most of which
they have brought with them out of Jew-deo-unchristian churches and
seminaries. Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, a vehement anti-seedliner, comments thus in
his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?, page 15, concerning the
words �tares� and �children� on this segment of Scripture in Matthew 13:
�Apparently the disciples were intrigued by this parable, but could not
understand its meaning. So Jesus explained it to them and told them that the
�tares� (#2215
� �zizanion�, a false grain called �darnel�, which looks like wheat), were the
�children of the wicked one.� The word �children� in Greek is (#5207 � �huios�
and means �immediate, remote or figurative kinship.� So if the word can refer
to �figurative kinship�, why are the SEED-LINERS so adamant in stating it
means �literal kinship?��
Had Lt. Col. Jack Mohr
checked with the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon; The Complete Word
Study Dictionary NT by Spiros Zodhiates; or An Expository Dictionary of
NT Words by W. E. Vine, instead of the limited definition found in
Strong�s, he would have found the primary meaning for the word �children�
#5207, means:
�(A) A male
offspring ... (B) In a wider sense a descendant, pl. descendants, posterity.�
(This definition is from Zodhiates, and the others agree.) There is a
secondary figurative sense which can apply and I will give you an example: The
disciples were called �sons of thunder.� Had Mohr read Strong�s more
carefully, he would have noticed that it mentioned �immediate kinship� first.
One�s immediate kinship would be one�s own son. Strong�s gave Mohr
three choices, and he rejected the first two and implied that �figurative
kinship� was the only one mentioned. Such a maneuver is hardly honest! It is
apparent, Mohr already had his mind made up what he thought it should be.
Secondly, Mohr forgets
that Messiah Himself said �seed are ... children.� Therefore, �seed� and
�children� cannot be separated. Consequently, it is highly essential to find
out what the word �seed� means. The Greek word for �seed� is #4690, and is
sperma. This is where we get the English word �sperm.� According to
Zodhiates, page 1304, �sperma ... Also figuratively used of
living beings as the seed of man; i.e., of posterity or descendants.� In
this case �figuratively� means comparing man�s seed to agricultural seed, and
that is exactly what this parable is doing in comparing Satan�s offspring to
tares (darnel).
Thirdly, we must check out
the one responsible for planting the darnel-like genetic people. In the
parable of the wheat and tares the word �wicked� is #4190, and is used with
the definite article �ho� in Matt. 13:19; Eph. 6:16; 1 John
1:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, and means �Satan.� Thus in 1 John 3:12 where it says:
�Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one ...�, it means exactly what it
says, �Satan.� Further, the word �wicked�, #4190, in that same verse,
according to Zodhiates, page 1198, is used with the definite article �ho�,
and means: �... the evil one, Satan ...� The book Synonyms of the New
Testament by Richard Trench confirms what Zodhiates says about the word
�wicked� (Greek #4190) on page 330: �Satan is emphatically ho poneros
as the first author of all the mischief in the world.� In his
Greek-English NT Lexicon, George Ricker Berry, page 82 describes ho
poneros as �... the wicked one. i.e., Satan ...� W. E. Vine in his
An Expository Dictionary of NT Words under �wicked� on Matthew 13:38
states: �... and in the following [verse just cited], where Satan is
mentioned as �the (or that) evil one� ...� (Don�t waste your time with
Strong�s on this one.) Another way to verify the �wicked� of Matthew
13:38 is speaking of Satan is to go to Matthew 13:19 where the same Greek word
#4190 is used saying: �... then cometh the wicked one ...� Then compare
the parallel passage in Luke 8:12 which says: �... then cometh the devil ...�
Conclusion: the �seed� or �children� in Matthew 13:38 planted by the �wicked�
one are the genetic offspring of Satan!
In his attempt to
spiritualize and take a figurative view of the �tares� in Matthew 13, Ted R.
Weiland in his Eve, Did She Or Didn�t She? in a rebuff of a quotation
by James E Wise, makes this statement:
�Furthermore, if the seedliners� interpretation of the wheat and tares parable
is accurate, and if the tares in Matthew 13 represent all the seed line of
Satan through Cain, then there is no alternative but to accept that the
wheat represents all the physical seed line of Eve through Seth. The
wheat in this parable depicts the sons of the kingdom, and by this
interpretation, the wheat would automatically be sons of the kingdom by their
heritage, that is, they would be saved by their race or lineage. If this is
true, then Yahshua�s death, burial and resurrection were wholly unnecessary.
Of course, this hypothesis flies in the face of the entire Bible ...�
Well, what do you know,
except for the last two sentences, Weiland got something right! After all,
Hebrews 12:8 says we are either �sons� or �bastards�, and there isn�t anything
in-between. And all this bull manure about being �born again�, (John 3:3), is
totally an incorrect translation and interpretation. That verse is not saying
�born again� but �born from above.� Actually if one will check that verse out,
it is saying one must be �born of the correct race.� To show you this, we will
investigate the meaning of the word �born� as used in John 3:3 which has the
Strong�s number 1080 in the Greek. For this we will go to The
Complete Word Study Dictionary NT by Spiros Zodhiates, page 364. Zodhiates
tells us this word means �generation, kind, offspring� ... and the primary
definition is: �Spoken of men, to beget� ... �Spoken of women, to bear, bring
forth� ... �To be begotten� ... �To be born as used generally ...� In other
words, when an Adamic White person is born in the flesh, he is also born of
the Spirit. Other races are not �born� of that Spirit, nor can they ever be.
Zodhiates points out that �born� as used here (#1080) gennao, is from
#1085, genos, which in turn means �offspring, posterity ... family,
lineage, stock ...� You can also check this with Strong�s, but you must
follow-through to #1085 to get the entire meaning. If you should check only
the word #1080, gennao, you will not understand the full implications,
for it is speaking of race. John 3:31 makes it clear there are �heavenly�
people from above and people �that are of the earth ... earthly ...� Our
Redeemer told the Jews, John 8:23:
�Ye are
from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world, I am not of this world.�
Thus, like us, He
was also born from above; i.e., of the White race.
I don�t want to leave the
impression that we should not be converted though. It�s not a matter, as the
Babylonian prostitute preachers imply, that one should �accept the Lord Jesus
Christ as our personal Savior.� It�s not a question of whether we accept
Yahshua, but whether on not He accepts us. Inasmuch as He died two thousand
years ago for our Redemption, He has already accepted us. To be truly
converted, we must accept His Redemption, which brings about communion!
Conversion does not consist of being �regenerated by the Spirit�, but of being
�turned around� (an about-face). Where in the past we were �sinners� (breakers
of Yahweh�s Law), we do a 180 and start, to the best of our ability, to keep
His Laws.
I know that many who are
reading this have experienced conversion. Whatever kind of prayer we made at
that time, it was necessary for the Spirit to intercede on our behalf, (Romans
8:26). It�s only conjecture what kind of �groanings� the Spirit might have
�uttered�, but perhaps it might have gone something like this: �Here is an
Israelite under the Covenant of Abraham who has come to the realization that
he/she is a Lawbreaker and wishes to plead the blood of Redemption on his/her
behalf. He/she promises hereafter, based upon the light of the written Word,
do his/her best to reject the leaven of the Pharisees, and to return to the
faith of the Patriarchs.� Don�t worry about the exact words you might have
prayed at your conversion, for the Spirit interceded and presented them before
the Throne in an appropriate manner! Also, don�t distress yourself about all
the members of your family kin who were never converted. If they were not
converted in this life, they will be in the next, for it is written: �...
every [Adamic] knee shall bow to me, and every [Adamic] tongue shall confess
to God�, (Romans 14:11). Some of us Adamite-Israelites send our sins ahead to
the Judgment, while for other Adamite-Israelites, their sins will follow them
to the Judgment, (1 Timothy 5:24). And that is no sign the latter are going to
be assigned to a burning hell. They will be in the kingdom too. But aren�t you
glad you settled the account ahead of time?
To show you Ted. R.
Weiland is still holding the position on the parable of the wheat and the
tares which he learned at his Christian Leadership College in Denver,
Colorado, I will quote a ludicrous statement he made in his Eve, Did She Or
Didn�t She?, page 72:
�Instead, this
parable [of the wheat and the tares] is simply contrasting righteous
Israelites with wicked Israelites ...�
To believe such a thing,
Weiland is implying that agriculturally wheat has the same genetics as darnel.
If, as he contends, the only difference between wheat and darnel are
�righteous� and �wicked� Israelites, in essence he is claiming wheat and
darnel are genetically identical. It would seem, with this conclusion, that
Messiah is somewhat incompetent in presenting His teachings by way of
parables. Or rather, could it be that Weiland is the one who is incompetent in
understanding them?!?! The truth is, the wheat and tares are NOT
genetically identical, and neither are the seed of the serpent and the seed of
the woman whom the wheat and tares represent. They may have had the same
mother, but they surely had different fathers! By such spurious teachings as
this, Weiland is doing more damage to Israel Identity than he is doing good!
[which might be intentional]
Jack Mohr gets his two
cents worth in by saying in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?,
page 15:
�In no way does
this Parable [of the wheat and the tares] point to specific people by race,
who are literal descendants of Satan, coming from his union with Mother Eve.�
Moreover, on
pages 15-16, Mohr has his own convoluted idea of what he thinks the parable of
the wheat and tares is all about:
�The
�tares�, those who disobey God�s law and refuse to be reconciled to Him, will
be gathered at this time by the reapers, who will be �angels�, not �white
Israelites, bent on vengeance� ... This is one of the biggest problems with
the SEEDLINE people. They are more concerned with �pulling up the tares�, whom
they say are the Jewish people, then [sic. probably than] in getting their own
house in order and their own Israelite people in a right relationship with
God, so that He can do the �rooting out work.� As a result, we find the
SEEDLINERS doing exactly what Jesus warned them not to do, �rooting up the
wheat along with the tares ... I can assure you from the Word of God, that
when the �rooting up� process takes place, there are going to be �white
Israelites� among the �tares� who will be rooted up along with God�s other
enemies.��
I have two questions:
Where in the Bible does Mohr get his evidence to substantiate these claims?
Where is his verification this parable of the wheat and the tares is not
racial in nature? As already documented in this Special Notice both the
words #4690, �seed� and #5207, �children�, mean �kinship� and �posterity.� How
much more racial can it be?!?! Furthermore, if one will read some of Jack
Mohr�s other publications, one will find that he has a very peculiar
position on race and talks out of both sides of his mouth on that subject.
Remember, Scripture says: �A double minded man is unstable in all his
ways�, (James 1:8).
Further evidence
concerning the meaning of the term �seed� is found in The Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume Q-Z, pages 328-329: �SEED
... is used to indicate both agricultural and human seed, the latter both in a
narrow physical sense and as a description of the descendants of a common
ancestor ... the Israelite was commanded not to mix his seed in any field or
vineyard, but to plant only one crop (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9), a stricture
[critical remark] parallel to that regarding the mixture of human seed by
intermarriage with other nations.�
In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the common ancestor to the �wheat�
is Seth, the son of Adam. The common ancestor of the tares is Cain, the son of
Satan through Eve.
While many commentaries
address the topic of �tares�, a very good description for the term is given by
The Westminster Dictionary Of The Bible by Henry Gehman, page 591: �Tares.
The rendering of Gr. zizanion in Matt. 13:25-27, 29, 30; R.V. marg.
darnel. The tare (Vicia sativa), a vetch, with pinnate and purple-blue
or red papillionaceous flowers, would be easily distinguished from the wheat.
The Gr. word zizanion, which is probably of Semitic origin, corresponds
to Arab. zuwan., which denotes Lolium, and to Talmudic zonin.
The bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum) is a poisonous grass almost
indistinguishable from wheat while the 2 are only in blade, but which can be
separated without difficulty when they come into ear (cf. vs. 29, 30).�
The poison from the
�tares� is caused by a fungus. �The
darnel is host to an ergot-like smut fungus which infects the seeds. The
fungus is a serious poison if eaten by animals or man.�
(Pictorial Bible Dictionary by Merrill C. Tinney, page 668.).
From this description, we
can easily apply the term �tares� to the �Jews.� You will notice that when the
darnel comes into flower the colors are �purple-blue or red.� Because the
�Jews� represent a few members of the Tribe of Judah who didn�t keep their
bloodline pure, they would naturally appear as a counterfeit royal-blue, which
in turn, serves to identify them with the tares. But the color red is even
more significant, as it can represent Communism, for which the �Jews� are the
inventors. Not only that, but it is the color of Esau from whom they also
descend. It is also the color of the �red dragon� of Revelation 12:3 which
represents Herod, the �Jewish� Edomite-racial proselyte who attempted to
murder the Emmanuel-child shortly after His birth. (For Herod�s father�s and
mother�s lineage, check Josephus� Wars 1:6:2; 1:12:3; Antiq. 14:1:3;
14:8:1; 14:7:3; 14:12:1.) Furthermore, the poison from the darnel seed would
be representative of the poison; �leaven of the Pharisees� which churchianity
today is so infected with. Who says the �tares� don�t represent the �Jewish�
people?!?!
Della Stanley in her book
Adam�s Tree, (1975) pages 170-173, puts it very nicely about the
parable of the wheat and the tares at the end of chapter 34 and the beginning
of chapter 35, entitled �Pharisees and Scribes � a Generation of Vipers.� I
will quote excerpts from these few pages as a critical review in order to
counter the anti-seedliners� arguments:
�... Jesus gave the people another parable
concerning wheat and tares. He compared the kingdom of heaven to a man that
sowed productive seed in his field. But while his men or servants slept, an
enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. When the plants came up and
brought forth fruit, the tares came up also. The servants wanted to go and
gather out the tares, but the man said wait until harvest time. Then he
instructed the reapers to gather the tares first, and bind them in bundles to
burn them; and gather the wheat into his barn. (Matthew 13:24-30) ...
�... When Cain killed Able he was cursed and
banished from the presence of God, and the curse was never lifted. And at this
time the seed of man was divided into two groups: the descendants of Seth that
replaced Abel which were the children of God; and the descendants of Cain
which became the children of the devil.
�Generations later, Canaan, the son of Ham,
was cursed. And the curse was never lifted, therefore his descendants became
the children of the devil [by admixture with Kenites, Gen. 15:19].
�Nimrod was another descendant of Ham; and he
built cities, among them Babylon. When the Israelites under Joshua pushed a
portion of the Canaanites out of the land of Canaan, they dispersed and some
went to Babylon. Later still, there were the Shelanites, descendants of Shelah
the son of Judah of the house of Jacob, whose mother was a Canaanite ...
neither were they allowed to rule through the house of Judah.
�The people that returned to Jerusalem from
the sixth century B.C. captivity were not of the house of Israel, but were a
remnant of the house of Judah. But it was the royal house of Zedekiah and his
followers that God said, �I will deliver them to be removed into all kingdoms
of the earth for their hurt, to be a proverb, a reproach, a taunt, and a curse
...� it was mostly the members of Zedekiah�s house and his followers that
intermarried with the cursed descendants of Canaan [which had also mixed with
the Kenites, the descendants of Cain].
�After the return of
the Jews to Jerusalem, there emerged a number of sects called the Pharisees,
the Sadducees, the Herodians, and the Scribes ... John the Baptist called
these people a generation [race] of vipers. Jesus called them hypocrites
and children of the devil; and cautioned His disciples to
beware of their doctrine. He speaks of Satan
and his kingdom in Luke 11:18 ... And
everywhere He went the Scribes and
Pharisees followed and opposed everything that He did.
�There was quite a division among the Jews for
the sayings of Jesus. Some believed and some did not. They came to Him and
said, �How long dost thou make us to doubt? It thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly.� Jesus replied, �I have told you, but you believe not ... because ye
are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice ... and follow me. And I give them
eternal life ... and I and my Father are one� (John 10:24-30) And the Jews
took up stones to stone him ... But Jesus said, �If God were your Father, then
ye would love me: for I came from God ... ye are of your father the devil, and
the lust of your father ye will do ...� [Comments in brackets mine.]
What Della Stanley failed
to explain was: Of the two factions (one favoring diplomacy with Babylon; the
other with Egypt), the house of Zedekiah favored the latter. After
Nebuchadnezzar captured Zedekiah, and killing his sons and gouging out his
eyes, and Jerusalem was destroyed, a small remnant forced Jeremiah to
accompany them to Egypt for which he had forewarned them against. After
Jeremiah sailed to Britain with Tea Tephi, the remainder fell under the
judgment of a third dying by sword, a third by pestilence, and a third by
famine. Actually, later, another small group ended up in Elephantine in Egypt
where they built a temple after the fashion of Solomon�s Temple (check
Elephantine Papyri), and intermixing with African Cushite types (i.e., Sammy
Davis Jr.) they became half-breed Falasha (black) �Jews.� You can�t find a
more rotten �bad fig� than that! How foolish then is Ted R. Weiland�s remark,
already quoted from his Eve Did She Or Didn�t She?, page 72, but this
time I will finish it:
�Instead, this
parable [of the wheat and the tares] is simply contrasting righteous
Israelites with wicked Israelites, much the same as the good and evil figs of
Jeremiah 24.�
You can see from this, Weiland hasn�t the slightest clue why the house of
Zedekiah was considered �naughty figs.� Della Stanley should rather have
linked the �bad figs� with the �residue� after Jerusalem was destroyed and
later a small faction at Elephantine in Egypt.
HOME
